Reading: Review: A Short History of Atheism

Book Review

Review: A Short History of Atheism

Author:

Daniel J Linford

Thomas Nelson Community College, US

About Daniel

I am an adjunct professor in the philosophy department at Thomas Nelson Community College and a recent graduate of Virginia Tech's philosophy master's program. Before attending Tech, I received a bachelor's degree in physics from the University of Rochester.

Gavin Hyman’s A Short History of Atheism (herein:
SHA) offers a metanarrative explanation of the theological and
philosophical origins of modern atheism. For Hyman, modern atheism is the rejection of a
specifically modern God. Because atheism did not exist prior to modernity, and modernity
has not fully collapsed, modern atheism is atheism without qualification. Hyman argues
that as the medieval period gave way to early modernity, changing conceptions of God led
to ontologies incompatible with theism. While Hyman states that his book is not meant to
directly attack the arguments produced by atheists, he argues that atheistic arguments
are as unstable as the modern theology atheism rejects.

SHA contains eight chapters. Hyman discusses God in modernity in the
first three chapters. In the fourth, he moves to an explication of the conceptual
evolution of theism from the medieval period to early modernity. Afterwards, Hyman
devotes chapters to biblical criticism, the rise of modern scientific legitimacy, the
problem of evil, and their respective relationships to modern atheism. Finally, he
concludes with a chapter length discussion of postmodern theology and the potential
demise of atheism with the collapse of modernity.

Hyman distinguishes early modern and medieval theologies. In Thomas Aquinas’s
prototypically medieval conception of God, terms do not apply the same to creatures as
they do to God (univocal predication). Speaking univocally about God and creatures would
involve applying created categories to a god that transcends all created categories. Yet
the terms that apply to God cannot be divorced from creaturely languages (equivocal
predication). If they were, creatures would be incapable of ever speaking about or
believing in God. Aquinas’s solution was that predication is neither univocal nor
equivocal of God and creatures, but analogical.

According to Hyman, Thomistic analogical predication was neglected in early modernity so
that God was either spoken of univocally or equivocally. Speaking of God in these two
ways renders theism vulnerable to atheistic arguments. For example, univocal predication
opens theism to the Problem of Evil: if the term ‘good’ is applied
univocally of God and creatures, and if humans are obligated to prevent suffering to the
degree that they are able, then, a fortiori, so too would a benevolent and omnipotent
deity. Yet vast suffering exists in our world, so God, the argument goes, does not. The
Problem of Evil dissolves if the term ‘good’ (and all other terms) mean
something different when applied to God than when applied to creatures. God does not
have the same kind of moral obligations as creatures because God transcends all
creaturely categories including goodness. Univocal predication enables atheistic
critiques (e.g., Ludwig Feuerbach): the conceptions of God held by various individuals
result from projecting themselves onto the divine and not from some transcendent
reality. Equivocal predication opens theism to a different collection of problems. If
God is spoken of equivocally then God disappears into Kant’s noumena. Agnosticism
results.

Hyman states that his account of the history of atheism is not altogether new, but
differs from the accounts provided in other histories in significant ways. First, while
both Alan Kors’s Atheism in France: 1650–1729 and David
Berman’s History of Atheism in Britain implicate theological
changes in early modernity in the development of atheism, neither implicate the neglect
of analogy. Indeed, Hyman’s focus on analogy in early modernity leaves various
historical facts unexplained. For example, seventeenth century France saw a resurgence
of Thomism while early modern atheism was at its most vocal in eighteenth century
France. Recent work by Richard Muller has shown that reformation theologians throughout
Europe debated Thomistic analogy through the end of the seventeenth century. In the 18th
century, in the context of debates with freethinkers, George Berkeley (1685–1753)
references the still on-going debate over Thomistic analogy. Despite references to
Berkeley’s comments appearing in other histories of atheism, such as David
Berman’s, Hyman nowhere references the incident. Second, Hyman does not discuss
the way in which eighteenth century critics of religion engaged religious language,
despite obvious examples from Thomas Hobbes, Paul-Henri Thiry Baron d’Holbach, and
others. For example, D’Holbach argues against one conception of theological
analogy that closely parallels an argument considered by Thomas Aquinas, but Hyman fails
to discuss this. Similarly, Hyman’s discussion of David Hume focuses on
Hume’s epistemology. However, he does not discuss the use Hume makes of religious
language in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. This is
peculiar, given Hume’s discussion of “anthropomorphite” (univocal)
religious language and of Hume’s appeal to the debate over theological analogy
between William King and Anthony Turner. Also neglected is a discussion of the debate
over theological analogy between King and Peter Browne, which continued into the 19th
century, made frequent references to Thomas, and interacted with the anglophone
Freethought community (e.g. Collins and Hume, among others).

At several points, Hyman mischaracterizes atheism in both its present and historical
forms. Hyman opens the first chapter by discussing atheism as a “confession”
with various “creeds”, characterizing atheism as more organized than it has
generally been and through an ethnocentric Christian lens. For academics working on
nonreligion and secularism, Hyman’s penchant for such locutions will likely appear
suspect.

Hyman’s book, while highly original, will likely raise doubts of its own.